Paul said, "...do not become slaves of men." Why?

[2PhiloVoid]

Right. Paul gave the imperative, "...do not become slaves of men." Now, why would he say this, and why might it be something important to consider as a point of contention against the idea that Jesus and the Apostles somehow "advocated" slavery as some skeptics now say they did? How might we discern Paul's intended meaning overall?

Discuss!!!

 

[Occams Barber]

Right. Paul gave the imperative, "...do not become slaves of men." Now, why would he say this, and why might it be something important to consider as a point of contention against the idea that Jesus and the Apostles somehow "advocated" slavery as some skeptics now say they did? How might we discern Paul's intended meaning overall?

Discuss!!!

I found this in the Foyer. Is it yours?

OB

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I found this in the Foyer. Is it yours?
View attachment 281653
OB

I was wondering where that'd gone to ... Whew! I'm so glad you found it, just in time, too! Thanks!

 

[cloudyday2]

1 Corinthians 7 where your quote originates seems to argue that new converts should change nothing about their lives except for trying to follow the commandments of God. Christians should not separate from unbelieving family members or worry about whether or not they are circumcised or whether or not they are slaves.

1 Corinthians 7:23 that you quote seems at first glance to be so stupidly obvious that it was a waste of paper and ink. Of course a person should try not to be enslaved if they can prevent it.

The stupidity of the quote when read literally makes me think that it is a metaphor for something else. Maybe Paul was saying that converts are enslaving themselves to men when they seek their approval on issues such as the embarrassment of unbelieving and sinful family members, circumcision, whether you are a literal slave under Roman law, etc.

A side issue is what Paul meant by "the commandments of God". Paul was an opponent of circumcision and Jewish dietary laws for Gentile converts.

 

[Caliban]

Right. Paul gave the imperative, "...do not become slaves of men." Now, why would he say this, and why might it be something important to consider as a point of contention against the idea that Jesus and the Apostles somehow "advocated" slavery as some skeptics now say they did? How might we discern Paul's intended meaning overall?

Discuss!!!

I don't think this has anything to do with actual slavery. Paul was simply employing analogy. But it is clear that slavery did not have a negative connotation for Paul.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't think this has anything to do with actual slavery. Paul was simply employing analogy. But it is clear that slavery did not have a negative connotation for Paul.

Are you sure that what Paul said here has no connection to the actual Roman slavery that was part and parcel of life 2,000 years ago? Did you read the passage from which this blurb of Paul's is extracted?

 

[Caliban]

Are you sure that what Paul said here has no connection to the actual Roman slavery that was part and parcel of life 2,000 years ago? Did you read the passage from which this blurb of Paul's is extracted?

What I mean is that I don't think this passage can be read as advocating the institution of slavery.

 

[cloudyday2]

I don't think this has anything to do with actual slavery. Paul was simply employing analogy. But it is clear that slavery did not have a negative connotation for Paul.

There is a lecture by J.D. Crossan where he argued that Paul's views expressed in the epistles are remarkably progressive on slavery and equality of women if the forged Paulian epistles are discarded. Paul's opinion on slavery was that Christians should not own Christian slaves. So if your slave converted to Christianity then you needed to free him/her.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What I mean is that I don't think this passage can be read as advocating the institution of slavery.

And I agree. This passage doesn't advocate the insititution of slavery. If anything, it's a bit of advice against allowing one's self to become a slave if such can be avoided ................... right?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

There is a lecture by J.D. Crossan where he argued that Paul's views expressed in the epistles are remarkably progressive on slavery and equality of women if the forged Paulian epistles are discarded. Paul's opinion on slavery was that Christians should not own Christian slaves. So if your slave converted to Christianity then you needed to free him/her.

Yep. So, let's just add what Crossan thinks in his own scholarship to what Bowen and Robinson say in the video in the OP of my other 'slavery' thread ...

 

[Caliban]

There is a lecture by J.D. Crossan where he argued that Paul's views expressed in the epistles are remarkably progressive on slavery and equality of women if the forged Paulian epistles are discarded. Paul's opinion on slavery was that Christians should not own Christian slaves. So if your slave converted to Christianity then you needed to free him/her.

I agree with that. But since I do not believe in progressive revelation and I treat each book of the Hebrew Bible and the Christian New Testament as individual books within a developing tradition, I don't think Paul's view are exculpatory of previous books.

 

[Caliban]

And I agree. This passage doesn't advocate the insititution of slavery. If anything, it's a bit of advice against allowing one's self to become a slave if such can be avoided ................... right?

Yes, definitely.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yes, definitely.

Furthermore, I'm going to go with Orlando Patterson's thesis that the modern day notions of "Freedom" we all so enjoy today can, at least in part and in germinal form, be traced back to Jesus and Paul's teachings (and/or writings). So, that's something you might want to check out too, Caliban.

 

[Caliban]

Furthermore, I'm going to go with Orlando Patterson's thesis that the modern day notions of "Freedom" we all so enjoy today can, at least in part and in germinal form, be traced back to Jesus and Paul's teachings (and/or writings). So, that's something you might want to check out too, Caliban.

What is Patterson's argument. That's an ambitious claim.

 

[cloudyday2]

Yep. So, let's just add what Crossan thinks in his own scholarship to what Bowen and Robinson say in the video in the OP of my other 'slavery' thread ...

Here is a link to an introduction/summary of "The First Paul" by Borg and Crossan:
The First Paul

Here is are some other interesting facts suggesting that early Christians were opposed to slavery:

The Essenes, likely responsible for our Dead Sea Scrolls, apparently forbade members from owning slaves. The book of Revelation lists slaves among the luxury items that Roman commerce generated by exploiting other societies (18:13). Most touchingly, very ancient documents indicate that some Christians literally sold themselves into slavery to purchase the freedom of others (1 Clement 54:4-5), while some churches collected money to buy slaves’ freedom (Ignatius to Polycarp 4:8-10; Shepherd of Hermas 38.10; 50.8).

What The Bible Really Says About Slavery | HuffPost

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What is Patterson's argument. That's an ambitious claim.

Essentially, his argument is that the New Testament writings of Paul and those pertaining to select things that Jesus said about 'freedom from sin' set the historical stage for the ongoing development of thought in the West (in contradistinction to the East) by which the concept of 'Freedom' could and would emerge and grow.

See Orlando Patterson's 500+ page book, Freedom in the Making of Western Culture (1991) for his overall sociological and historical argument. I bought a copy of this book and have been influenced by it for over 20 years.

 

[Caliban]

Here is a link to an introduction/summary of "The First Paul" by Borg and Crossan:
The First Paul

Here is are some other interesting facts suggesting that early Christians were opposed to slavery:

What The Bible Really Says About Slavery | HuffPost

There is not one position on slavery in the Bible. The collection of books in the canon span thousands of years--there are a variety of ideas and opinions that are philosophically and theologically divergent. Whether there is an after life is one of these divergent views. Slavery is similar.

 

[Caliban]

Essentially, his argument is that the New Testament writings of Paul and those pertaining to select things that Jesus said about 'freedom from sin' set the historical stage for the ongoing development of thought in the West (in contradistinction to the East) by which the concept of 'Freedom' could and would emerge and grow.

See Orlando Patterson's 500+ page book, Freedom in the Making of Western Culture (1991) for his overall sociological and historical argument. I bought a copy of this book and have been influenced by it over 20 years ago.

I will look into it--thank for the recommendation!

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Right. Paul gave the imperative, "...do not become slaves of men." Now, why would he say this, and why might it be something important to consider as a point of contention against the idea that Jesus and the Apostles somehow "advocated" slavery as some skeptics now say they did? How might we discern Paul's intended meaning overall?

Discuss!!!

Well the obvious is to lookup the context. Like this strikes me as something he would say about the Judaizers and the super-apostles who were bossing people around because they thought they had special privilege based on their personal revelations.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well the obvious is to lookup the context. Like this strikes me as something he would say about the Judaizers and the super-apostles who were bossing people around because they thought they had special privilege based on their personal revelations.

Yeah, I agree. The context is important. In the case of what we find in 1 Corinthians 7:20-24, it seems Paul suggests that Roman slavery should be avoided if possible, and we have to wonder why he says this if he actually thinks Roman slavery is 'ok.'